Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Omnipotence paradox discussion

Raul's opinion
Raul654 stated that he had started thinking about on what day to feature Christmas back in August. Initially, he thought about doing it on Black Friday, but, "after a few weeks of mulling it over", decided that December 24th/25th is the only choice for which nobody would see the article on the main page and complain about it not being on the "more logical" date of December 25th. I agree with his rationale, support his decision, and consider this "discussion" closed. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 14:13

Discussion
(moved by Brian0918 on 4 December 2005)


 * Just curious, what is the relevance of Dec 25 for this article? Won't Isaac Newton (his birthday's on that date), or naturally, Christmas be better choices? Borisblue 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Christmas would not be a good choice, see posts in the Christmas thread below. As for Isaac Newton, it doesn't really matter much either way, but he would be mentioned on the main page under anniversaries anyway, so it would be better to have something else. Yeltensic42.618 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The featured article of the day should generally not have anything of great importance to do with that date. Christmas will already be on the main page that day under Holidays. Sir Isaac Newton wasn't born on our December 25th, but the December 25th in the Julian Calendar. That's our January 4th.. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-30 22:06


 * But I don't see any reason for this particular article. It seems like a deliberate effort to "counter" or "contrast with" a holiday that's important to many people.  Better to put this on a different day, and have something completely irrelevant (or have Christmas or Isaac Newton, as above) for December 25. -- SCZenz 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I requested this particular article, that is all. As for "countering" the holiday, that would only be true if our featured article on Omnipotence paradox was not NPOV. If you think the article contains a POV, then propose that it be fixed. I understand that the holiday is important to many people, but still don't know what their concern is about. It is a well-written, neutral article that recently completed FAC and discusses the topic of omnipotence paradox. In any case, Wikipedia doesn't actively avoid offending certain groups or beliefs (see Content disclaimer). Again, Isaac Newton was born on January 4th, not December 25th. And Christmas will be featured under the "Holidays" section of the main page, along with a picture of a Christmas tree, and an entry on the Christmas carol "Silent Night". I think that's plenty of the same thing for one main page. Don't you? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-30 22:18


 * OK, so neither Isaac Newton or Christmas makes sense for December 25. I still maintain that this doesn't either; an article can be NPOV but still give the appearence of POV-pushing if it's liked from certain places, and I think that's what featuring this on December 25 would do.  And I say, when the effort is very minimal, it's nice to avoid offending peoples' beliefs.  Just put this some other day. -- SCZenz 22:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would make for a fine featured article, but I don't see why it has to show up on the Main Page on Christmas Day. We don't need to go out of our way to avoid offending Christians, yes, but we shouldn't try to offend them, either. — Saric (Talk) 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And placing at least 3 references to Christmas on the main page all at once (which we will be doing) isn't offensive to other people? Everyone finds a way to be offended by something. That's why Wikipedia pays no mind to the concept. I would hope that a featured article could be judged on its own merits, not on whether it might offend someone. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 01:11

The article is NPOV, but saying "hey, lookee here, there's a massive logical flaw in your religion!" on Christmas may be a bad idea. Though I do think this is MP-worthy. How about the 21st? N (t/c) 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If Christmas can be referenced 3 times in on Christmas (which it currently will), why can't any other featured article be used on the main page on Christmas as well? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 01:04
 * Who exactly is the "you" that you refer to as having this religion? Are you suggesting that we espouse a western bias by placing no fewer than 3 references to Christmas on the main page on December 25th, and at the same time avoid any entries which may be considered offensive? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 01:11
 * We should have everyone's holidays on the main page, and I wouldn't put this article up during any holiday of a religion with an omnipotent diety. -- SCZenz 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's alright to amend your opinions to save face, but Wikipedia doesn't do the same. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 01:41

I just thought I would point out that a), this is not to counter Christmas, this is an NPOV article, and points out fundamental flaws in the argument; b), the article really does nothing to attack belief (if you think much about it, it isn't very good as an argument against God's existence, I think...read the article for more on that); and c), just as we should not try to offend people, we also should not try to avoid it, even if the effort is minimal...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative project on how to shield people from hearing what they don't want to hear. Yeltensic42.618 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominating this article for the 25th is going out of our way to emphasize we're not avoiding it, which is the same as doing it on purpose. -- SCZenz 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much you think we will look bad to others, that shouldn't even influence our decisions on what should be featured when and where. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 01:45
 * Perhaps I could say the same to you. But nevermind, I've made my argument.  Let's let Raul do his job and figure it out. -- SCZenz 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your nomination of this article for Christmas indicates a clear agenda. I happen to share your agenda, but surely you realize that although this article is NPOV and there's nothing inherently offensive about putting it on the Main Page, if it is chosen for Dec. 25 people will be plausibly able to say that the Wikipedia authorities bent to an atheist's personal agenda. As SCZenz says, "Nominating this article for the 25th is going out of our way to emphasize we're not avoiding it, which is the same as doing it on purpose." N (t/c) 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if nominating this article is going out of our way to emphasize we're not avoiding it, that is not the same as doing it on purpose; it would merely show that we are not afraid of controversy, and that is a good thing (once we start worrying about what others think and making sure that we don't offend anyone or look like we're trying to offend anyone, any notion of writing a factual encyclopedia is out the window). As for any agendas, preventing the nomination of this article because it might offend Christians is itself an agenda of shielding people from viewpoints they disagree with. I've also noticed that no one has made similar comments against nominating the Christmas article, even though it is no less an agenda of Western bias than this is an agenda of atheism (I would also like to say that I highly doubt signs of bending to a theist's agenda would be as controversial as bending to an atheist's agenda...this is a sign of the extreme arbitrariness of what is and isn't offensive, and therefore another reason to ignore the issue of whether an article might be considered offensive). By the way, I'm not picky about what day we have this article on MP, it could be on another upcoming day for all I care; but I think it would definitely be better to have it on the 25th than to postpone it on the basis of potential offensiveness. Yeltensic42.618 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is, there is no particular reason to have it on the 25th, whereas Newton has a birthday on that date- so there is some significance (and I'm quite sure no one finds him offensive). As for the Julian Calendar thing, please note that his birthday is celebrated on Dec 25 nevertheless (see Newtonmas. Also, his birthday isn't a selected anniversary, so he would only be on the main page once.


 * Exactly. Forget all questions of offensiveness. Just ask, why have this article on Christmas as opposed to any other day? N (t/c) 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is Newtonmas is not a valid reason for featuring him on that day; there need be no particular reason for an article on a given day other than merit...articles are not chosen on the basis of the day. So, whether there is some significance to the day is entirely irrelevant. Then ask, "Why not have omnipotence paradox on Christmas as opposed to any other day?" (keeping in mind that the matter of offensiveness is also irrelevant) Furthermore, it would make no sense for Christians to view mention of the omnipotence paradox as an attack on their faith; as an argument against God's existence, it is filled with holes. Yeltensic42.618 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But we have promoted articles on anniversaries, significant dates etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, e.g. the Claudius request above. Borisblue 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * December 25 is not a significant date having anything to do with this paradox. N (t/c) 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Tomorrow's featured article, cited problems with featuring an article on the main page should be serious, and directly related to problems with the article itself, such as copyvios (specifically mentioned) or being a nihilartikel, for example. I highly doubt that Raul654 believes "people will be offended" is one of these criteria. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 12:51


 * I do think this article is Main Page-worthy. I just want to ask: Why are you so intent on having it on the 25th? N (t/c) 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it is a good article, it just finished FAC, and I noticed the December 25th nomination for Christmas, which would mean we would have 4 references to Christmas on the main page at once. What is wrong with having this nomination on December 25th? I don't see anyone else questioning any other nominations for specific dates, just this one. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 16:01
 * I agree that the Christmas nomination is a bad idea, but Raul's policy, IIRC, is explicitly to exclude FAs about the day they fall on. If your intent was solely not to have Christmas featured on Chrismas, why nominate this article? What does this article have to do with Christmas? Claudius has an obvious connection to the date it's nominated for. N (t/c) 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because an article has an obvious connection to the date doesn't mean its choice for that date should go unquestioned. This article has nothing specifically to do with Christmas. Why must an article have something to do with a date for it to be nominated for that date? Isn't that what we are trying to avoid? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 16:29

How many times do we have to remind you?....we don't choose FAs on the basis of the day. The Claudius "day significance" is irrelevant; we can still have it up there if you want, but the date doesn't enter into it. As far as I can see on this page, Christmas and omnipotence paradox are the only articles that have been suggested for the 25th; since there are some problems with having Christmas up there (see the thread below) and there is no valid reason not to have this one, that leaves only this one, unless someone else comes up with a better article (on the sole basis of merit, I might add). Yeltensic42.618 17:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is where people can suggest featured articles to appear on the Main Page, and in many cases the suggestion is coupled with a suggestion for an especially appropriate day (often of some tangential relevance to the article in question, such as a date of birth or death, or anniversary which would not otherwise be commemorated elsewhere on the front page). So in a number of cases, Raul654 does take (and has taken) that date into account in deciding what goes on the Main Page.  But it is by no means binding.


 * Other than Christmas and Omnipotence paradox, at least four other articles have been suggested for the main page on 25 December: Sicilian Baroque, History of the Jews in Poland, Zion National Park, and Isaac Newton.  Christmas is not a good candidate for 25 December because it will already be mentioned elsewhere on the Main Page as a holiday.  25 December has no particular relevant for Omnipotence paradox, and so is no better than my suggestion below of Zion National Park, or Silence's suggestion of History of the Jews in Poland, or Giano's suggestion of Sicilian Baroque.  However, I think there is a good reason to have Isaac Newton on the front page on 25 December as that was his birthday (under the old style of calendar in use in ENgland at the time). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Christmas is a bad candidate for that date because it will already be mentioned 3 times on the main page. I think people will have figured out after the first or second mention that December 25th is probably Christmas. Newton is already scheduled for main page on December 13th. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 18:04


 * Thanks for the message on my talk page. At the risk of boring the rest of the Wikipedia community, I don't understand where I am "completely wrong" above.  Have I incorrectly summarised how this page has worked historically?  Are Christmas and Omnipotence paradox the only featured articles to have been suggested to appear on the Main Page on 25 December?  Am I wrong in agreeing with you that Christmas is not an appropriate choice for 25 December?  Or that Isaac Newton is the most appropriate of the various other articles that have been suggested already?  Or that there is no particular reason to favour any one of the other three?


 * In any event, I don't see why Isaac Newton already being scheduled for 13 December stops him being rescheduled for 25 December and replaced on 13 December by something else (such as Christmas or Omnipotence paradox, perhaps). (It is a pity that Newtonmas is not featured, because it would be ideal.)  -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I must have misread, I thought you said Christmas was a good candidate for December 25th. Isaac Newton's birthday is not on December 25th; this December 25th is not the anniversary of his birthday. Anybody can choose any date using any calendar they want, that will not make it true that "363 years ago today, Isaac Newton was born". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 18:44
 * Misreading: fair enough. Newton: Au contraire, Isaac Newton's birthday is on December 25, just under the old style of calendar. There is often confusion between new style and old style dates, and this gives us an opportunity to make a nice point about dating on the front page. Does it actually matter than our 25 December using the Gregorian calendar is not the same as 25 December using the Julian calendar? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter. What if our calendar was off by 6 months instead? That would be December 25th versus June 25th. Big difference. On this December 25th, it is certainly not true that "Newton was born 363 years ago today". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 20:13
 * Two straw men in one paragraph! (i) The Gregorian calendar and Julian calendar do not differ by 6 months. (ii) I have never claimed that 25 December 2005 will be the 363rd anniversary of Newton's birthday. However, it is a WellKnownFact(tm) that Isaac Newton was born on 25 December. Ergo a good reason for putting him on the main page then. I'm surprised that you have not argueed that it would be even better to put him on the main page on 7 January (13 December seems a rather odd choice, given where we are in the calendar).  -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed those, no subheadings. If Raul deems any of them better, then we could have them on the 25th, but there is no more reason for them than for OP...and since it was nominated first (unless I'm missing something), then if all are chosen it should probably have dibs on picking the date for it (of course, if any of these articles are rejected for any reason of merit, then that would change the situation further). Yeltensic42.618 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if it helps, I can add subheadings ;) I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule that the featured article suggested first takes precedence, but I trust Raul654 to decide what should appear when. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It would seem that, in the absense of any objections based on merit, the only way to decide which article to be on the main page is to choose the first to be nominated. That has been my experience, for example, with Raul's choice of Arrested Development for December 5th, overrulling the later-nominated Rosa Parks for that day. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 18:47
 * I think you may be reading too much into the way that Raul654 has exercised his discretion in the past. As far as this goes, he makes the rules, and he can do what he likes (or can try to anyway - a degree of rebelliousness from some quarters came to the fore last 1 April). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes but I am also getting flooded with alternate suggestions for the day I requested. Nobody suggested an alternative for Christmas, but when it became clear that people objected to that article and that Raul probably wouldn't allow it, and I proposed this as an alternative, suddenly everyone jumps in to propose anything but this. It seems like people have their own personal objections to the article rather than objections based on the article's own merit. Imagine if you had some cherished FAC that had just been promoted, and you proposed it for a specific date, and told all your friends to watch that day, but then half a dozen other Wikipedians came along and demanded that it be replaced with any of their half dozen other suggestions. You probably wouldn't take it too kindly. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-1 20:18


 * Well, I'm sorry if you feel "flooded". You suggested an alternative, then some other people suggested some other alternatives; as you admit below, that is allowed.  I have no objections to Omnipotence paradox being a featured article or being on the Main Page (as if my or anyone else's objections would carry much weight anyway), but I think Isaac Newton would be a better choice for being on the main page on 25 December.  As I think was established before all these electrons got wasted.  I suspect we will have to agree to differ.


 * I'm also sorry if you have told all of your friends to watch for your cherished featured article on the main page on a particular date - there is no knowing when an article will appear on the main page until Raul654 sets up the relevant daily Today's featured article subpages. You say above that you have no particular reason for suggesting that Omnipotence paradox should be on the main page on 25 December, other than simply having asked for it. I find it hard to believe that you don't have some reason for asking for that particular date.  I also find it difficult to understand, if you have no particular reason for asking for that particular date, why another date (20 December, say) would not be just as acceptable.


 * (By the way, Brian0918, do you mark all of your edits with "minor edit" flag on? It is rather confusing to see a load of minor edits in the edit history but then find that large chunks of text have appeared or disappeared.  I appreciate that it can be difficult to remember to switch the flag off if it is set on by default, but please could you try to mark only minor edits as such.) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I never said I didn't have reasons, and I've already stated those reasons, which others have considered valid enough to the point of actively changing the nomination date for Christmas. On the contrary, you have yet to provide valid reasons for opposition to this article. Your remarks seem rather snide, but as this is the Internet, I cannot be sure. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 06:09

No one seems to have paid attention to my observation that the OP isn't even a very good attack on faith; if they give the matter any thought, Christians should be able to refute the concept easily. Yeltensic42.618 17:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The situation here is that there are clear problems with having Christmas featured on the 25th; other suggestions have either ALoan has cited have either been scheduled already for different days, or have been nominated more recently than OP; that leaves OP, for which there are no valid reasons against featuring it on the 25th. If anyone else suggests other articles for the 25th, OP should have priority over them for that date, having been suggested first (unless hypothetical other suggestions are better for the 25th for reasons of merit, which would be unlikely). Given the situation, OP is logically the best option for the 25th. Yeltensic42.618 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not an exercise in logic, or a taxi rank. As I said, Isaac Newton can be rescheduled (it would not be the first featured article to be rescheduled), and in any event there is no rule that suggestions here are taken "first come, first served".  -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason to reschedule Newton to the 25th, given that he was not born on our 25th, and the date is pretty irrelevant anyway; and in the absence of any other reasons (which describes this situation), "first come first serve" is really the only way that makes sense. As of yet, no one has presented any valid reasons against having OP for the 25th. Yeltensic42.618 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the nomination of this article to appear on the front page on the date given. Cyde 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Featuring this would demonstrate a blantantly anti-religious POV, alienating the majority of people who believe in any omnipotent being. Sure, feature it on any other day, such as December 27, but certainly not on one of the most significant religious celebrations of the year. If anything, I would support the featuring of Sicilian Baroque for December 25. Brisvegas 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Raul654 already had to delete a ton of people's entries for placing votes. This is for discussion. Consider restructuring your statement. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 00:38
 * I changed it, removing the votes from the statements. Yeltensic42.618 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sicilian Baroque would be a great compromise between the two FA articles. In my view, the ideal thing to do, because of how much controversy this has raised, is: feature Christmas on December 18th (it gets the Christmas resonance and informs people about a holiday in a lot of ways that they've never heard and in a style&mdash;Wiki-style&mdash;they've never heard it on), feature Omnipotence paradox on December 24th or a similar day (it "makes people think", but doesn't seem like an outright slap in the face to Christians, which it won't seem like to anyone who reads the article but which it certainly will seem like to the thousands of people who won't read it but will see it on the main page and immediately start up a storm of complaints and totally unnecessary controversy :)), and feature a totally different article on December 25th (not "History of the Jews in Poland", that was just a joke suggestion of mine :P Though I'm still enormously tempted to recommend Yom Kippur War for that day XD). Personally, I think that the absolutely best thing we could do would be: feature Read my lips: no new taxes on December 25th. :F But most other articles would be fine. -Silence 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You do understand the difference between raising "controversy" and raising "legitimate reasons for concern", right? Simply ganging up on one user does not mean that one user is wrong (though, in this case, I am not alone). Given the history of the Sicilian Baroque FAC, I'm pretty sure the person who originally was suggesting it for Dec 25th was doing so as an inside joke, and you just didn't get the joke. On the other hand, my nomination was not a joke, and it appears all of the opposition here has been an attempt to simply derail my nomination and give it the appearance of controversy/jokingness, but that could be an overstatement. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 05:27

Brisvegas, I could just as easily say that your nomination of Christmas demonstrates a blatantly religious POV, alienating atheists etc (by the way, I celebrate Christmas, so my opposition isn't some personal vendetta). But I don't at all think that you intended that; the fact that accusations of atheist agenda have leveled against Brian and I, while no one has accused you of Christian agenda, indicates the blatant double standard I have brought up. As for alienating believers, keep in mind that it is against Wikipedia policy to worry about offending some group or another, even if they are the majority; Wikipedia is not a democracy. Precedence is not given to Christians over anyone else, just for being more numerous. Yeltensic42.618 03:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeltensic. I do not agree that my nomination of Christmas for December 25 demonstrated a blatantly pro-Christian perspective, since it is now celebrated as a secular season by many countries, including non-Christian countries such as Japan. Moreover, my choice of date had a clear reason (i.e. it is celebrated on that day), but your choice of December 25 does appear somewhat puzzling - is it also "Omnipotence Paradox" Day? :) You seem to be a valuable Wikipedia contributor, so I don't want to offend you or anything. But for the sake of goodwill, can we please compromise and have a non-theology-related article for December 25? Feel free to list on any other date; it is an interesting article and does deserve featuring. Brisvegas 03:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are going to oppose the article, can you please oppose it on its own merits, and not on its appearance in relation to outside influences? It is well written and neutral in its point of view. If Christmas is also celebrated secularly, why the opposition to this article on religious grounds? We shouldn't be avoiding offending others, nor should we go out of our way to offend others. "Offense" should not even enter into the discussion, and yet it is the basis of all opposition to this article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 04:12
 * I do not oppose featuring the article on the MP, only featuring it on Christmas Day. A date should only be suggested if there is a compelling reason for it, e.g. an anniversary of the event or thing mentioned in the article. Other articles do not specify a date for when to be featured; neither should this. Ultimately, both Christmas and Omnipotence paradox deserve featuring, but let's compromise and choose something else. I have tried to be accomodating and have suggested Christmas be featured on December 21 instead. Please do the same and suggest another date for the OP article. BTW, I would never have thought that people would get so passionate about when articles are featured. Your comments have made me think and persuaded me to be more open-minded, so thank you Yeltesnic42.618 and Brian0918. Brisvegas 04:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please point me to where it says a date should only be suggested if there is a compelling reason for it. On the contrary, Raul has historically been against featuring articles on their anniversaries. I see no reason to "compromise" when no valid rationale for opposition have come up against this article. I only see an attempt to label my intent as "POV pushing", and an attempt to derail my nomination in favor of what one could consider your own POV (that I should not be allowed to nominate an article for a specific date). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 05:31
 * With all due respect, OP should not be featured on December 25 just because of someone's whim. The convention you want to be "pointed to" is an unwritten one; it can be seen in the other MP candidates on the page. Where a date has been suggested, a clear rationale is generally given. Brisvegas 05:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * People have nominated several articles for April 1 which were unrelated to that date, and Raul didn't ditch those as invalid. And my nomination for Norman Borlaug had nothing to do with date that I requested it on, and Raul accepted it without question. So it has been done, and even if it hadn't been done before, your rationale is illogical: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2005-12-4 06:06
 * I like the little maxim at the end :) Here's one in return: exceptions prove the rule. Even if rationales are unnecessary for choosing dates, then it is just proof that the method for nominating Main Page articles is itself illogical and could do with a re-think. Brisvegas 06:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't follow that at all. Can you please clarify this "logic"? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 06:27
 * My point exactly. Brisvegas 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you cannot communicate your point, I cannot consider it in decision-making. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 06:50
 * You have not made clear what you mean by 'please clarify this "logic"'. If you are trying to understand what I am on about, it is simply this: dates should only be suggested for articles where there is a clear reason to be featured on the proposed date. Otherwise, people should let Raul654 decide when to feature them. Brisvegas 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You originally said dates shouldn't be chosen lest they deal specifically with the article in question, and when I requested evidence of this, your evidence was that it has never been done before. So then, I pointed out to you that not only has it been done multiple times before, but Raul has accepted it without questioning before. Your reply, again, is that dates shouldn't be chosen lest they deal specifically with the article in question. So, we have gone back around in one complete circle. Now, it is my turn: what is your evidence that this is the case? For example, can you cite policy/guidelines? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 07:04

OK. As per you request, here are some examples: Claudius is requested for January 24 because it is the 1,965th anniversary of his rule. Iowa class battleship is suggested for December 31 because "it is the last day of the year and the last of the world's semi-retired battleships happen to be members of this class." The European Union was suggested for May 9 because it is Europe Day. Transit of Venus was suggested for around June 7 because that is when it would have occurred. Wikipedians are averse to introducing more bureaucracy in the form of even more guidelines and policy, but many users have followed this unwritten convention. Brisvegas 07:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Appeal to tradition, the logical fallacy that you are employing by claiming something is a rule because people have done such in the past. It's not even a good use of the fallacy, because I've already shown that nominations for unrelated days have been accepted by Raul in the past, without question. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 07:35
 * It is ironic that you should lecture me on "appeal to tradition", since that is exactly the same ploy (e.g. with April 1 and Norman Borlaug) you used above to justify your failure to provide a rationale for nominating December 25 as the date. Moreover, for all your preoccupation with logic, you have still not provided a logical explanation as to why omnipotence paradox should be featured on December 25. Brisvegas 07:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, your statements are entirely illogical and show a complete lack of understanding of basic logic. In any case, this "discussion" is closed, as Raul has already made his decisions and they should be accepted. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 13:56
 * The tradition is inconsistent, that may have been Brian's point. He was just citing those examples to demonstrate that what he did is allowed, no compelling reason is necessary. He nominated OP for 25th as a replacement for your nomination, because of problems associated with featuring Christmas then that we have discussed. It didn't matter what article he picked as a replacement; Brian just picked OP because it was a topic he was interested in, but it could have been anything really. Just to clarify, I do not think that you nominated Christmas for purposes of religious POV pushing, I was only saying that Brian's nomination of OP was no more POV than yours. But at any rate, Raul already picked Christmas anyway (though not for your reasons apparently; I disagree with his reasons as well, but I'll still respect his decision). Yeltensic42.618 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Brian, your re-hashing of old arguments is nothing if not counter-productive; please stop it. Yeltensic, I can see where you are coming from - it is regrettable that this issue has caused such a fuss, and I did show my will to compromise and accomodate the views of others by suggesting a different date for showcasing Christmas. In future, I shall strive to nominate articles on dates which are less contentious. Brisvegas 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV-pushing
This, and other edits like it, indicate a clear effort to push an atheist POV onto the main page. Deliberately choosing an article about criticism for religion for December 25, as an alternative to featuring Christmas, and expecting others to agree because they are atheists indicates a deliberate effort to make a POV point about Wikipedia's article selections, in flat contradiction to "I just asked for it, that's all" as stated above. I understand that it is seen as a response to a religious POV, but the proper response to POV is NPOV, not another POV. I recommend in the strongest possible terms that an article that has nothing to do with religion be used on December 25. -- SCZenz 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the article is POV? Are you also suggesting that all non-atheists believe in omnipotent deities? Isn't purposely choosing an article that has nothing to do with religion being just as selective as if you were to choose an article on the basis of religion? Shouldn't an article be selected on its own merits? I chose the article because it was newly featured and well-written, and as an alternative to having 4 links to Christmas on the main page at once. The impending debate that ensued, which was divided merely by religion/not-religion moved me to alert other people who agree with me on such matters (in the same way that inclusionists/deletionists rally around eachother on controversial AFD's), and I in no way concealed my actions or intentions. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. In any case, the article should still be determined on its own merits, not on my alleged intentions, which Raul654 is perfectly adept at doing. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 19:49
 * To answer your questions, in order:
 * No. Where an NPOV article is linked from can still push a POV, however.
 * No.
 * It could be considered such; I'm not making a statement on using Christmas one way or the other.
 * Yes, but in regard to the date of the article that's not what you're doing. You are not proposing that it be "selected on its own merits", you are explicitly countering Christmas.
 * I am countering having the same exact topic be the center of attention no less than 5 times at once on the main page. My choice was a newly featured article that is very well written and that I happen to like. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 20:51
 * I didn't make any allegations about your intentions without clear evidence, in accordance WP:AGF. My simple compromise proposal, without loss of face for anyone, is that we feature neither article on the 25th.  But of course that's up to Raul654.  I thought the link above was relevant to his decision, but I am now more than happy to stop this debate if you are. -- SCZenz 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on changing my proposal simply because others have redefined my "motives" for me and believe that Wikipedia should avoid being offensive, which is against policy. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 20:51
 * SCZenz, your suggestion that Brian is running some atheist conspiracy is absurd, there's no other word for it (well, admittedly, there are words like ridiculous or ludicrous, but anyway). Have you considered this....maybe he sent it out to atheists because it is a topic we are interested in....? Comments like yours pretty clearly indicate the double standard against atheists in the United States (maybe other parts of the world too), it's okay for Christians to be outspoken about their views but not for atheists (Madalyn Murray O'Hair, anyone?). No one has accused proponents of the Christmas article of POV pushing for God, it just got comments about too many mentions on the main page, and remarks from me about (probably unintentional) Western bias. There is no valid reason for greater backlash against OP than Xmas, it's just a double standard (it seems that even atheists adhere to this standard). Yeltensic42.618 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim he's running a conspiracy. I claimed that the choice of invites indicates his reasoning.  -- SCZenz 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is to say, I was stating that he is pushing his POV. I did not claim that atheists in general are trying to push their POV.  I apologize if that was unclear. -- SCZenz 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your allegations that he is trying to organize atheists into a POV pushing campaign strongly suggest what I was talking about. I never said that you said atheists in general are POV pushing, I merely pointed out your accusations that Brian is trying to get them to do that. And I still think it is very telling that no one is making such accusations against proponents of the xmas article. Yeltensic42.618 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

By choosing a specific date for OP, Brian was merely putting forth a replacement for an already suggested article (Christmas) for which there were problems with featuring it then. You suggested a compromise, but it was not necessary; there are clear problems with featuring xmas then, but none exist with op. The only reasons that have been presented against op are offensiveness (irrelevant, an invalid reason), and atheist pov-pushing (absurd, unfounded). There is no sensible case against op. Yeltensic42.618 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You've made your views known, I've made mine. Shall we let Raul654 decide? -- SCZenz 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally coming to suggest what I have been suggesting all along. Now please do not act as though you are the originator of this suggestion. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 20:55
 * I noticed yesterday that AngryParsley had been doing that (Special:Contributions/AngryParsley), but I hadn't seen Brian0918 doing it too. There are about 50 of them in Special:Contributions/Brian0918, starting about here.  A happy coincidence, no doubt. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that it is wrong to inform people who share your beliefs about possible topics they would consider very important (rather than on the off chance that they'll happen to be watching a specific page at a specific time)? Should we also shut down both the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedans as well, for these same alleged reasons? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 20:55


 * Brian's right; had AngryParsley not contacted me, I never would have known about this. Saying that what they did was inappropriate is like saying that political ads should be illegal. Yeltensic42.618 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between organizing those of similar view points about Wikipedia policy (which is POV-pushing, but not in the article namespace where it would hurt us), and trying to push a POV on the main page. -- SCZenz 22:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of AIW and ADW is to coordinate efforts to affect the outcomes of articles on AFD. People have opinions about what topics are significant, and they would like to know when such topics come up on AFD. When it became clear that people were battling on this page about religious versus non-religious, I left messages for people who I thought would also be interested in such topics coming up on TFA. I am still waiting for you to judge the article on its own merits instead of slinging accusations at the article's nominator. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 22:43
 * Again, you are suggesting that the article is POV. That is the only way "a POV" could be understood in the context of "wanting a specific featured article on the main page". If you think it is POV, that is fine. You can put a NPOV tag on the page, or nominate it to be unfeatured. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-2 22:40
 * I think we can settle this whole dispute by not having anything connected to religon as a FA by that date. I still think Isaac Newton will be a good choice (btw, Newtonmas is celebrated on DEc 25, regardless of when he was really born. Other than that, I suggest Goomba as a completely neutral, non-controversial FA :) Borisblue 03:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Isaac Newton article is already scheduled for the main page on December 13th. This "dispute" is not about the merits of Omnipotence paradox, but about my alleged "reasons" for choosing it for this date. I don't see why my nomination should be trumped by a lot of knee-jerk reactions. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-3 03:51
 * Somebody has a Christian persecution complex, and it's not pretty. --Cyde 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to see this article featured on December 25. It will make people think about their religion and that is what christmas should be for people (even if they're not christians). In most europe countries christmas and the other christmas days are feasts statuory holidays. Even when most Wikipedia users may have a christian or christian-like religion, featuring a christian article wouldn't be npov. So let's go and make people think... :) --Patrick.trettenbrein 22:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My support for this article on 25 isn't motivated by a desire to challenge Christians, but I agree, it is always better to (constructively) make people think than to just preach to the choir. Yeltensic42.618 03:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine's view
I neither support nor dispute this article is featured article material. But I strongly support the nominator's right to nominate as such. Let it rise or fall on its merits. - Amgine 07:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

TomStar81's view
In all honest I would not like this featured on Christmas, although not catholic I do feel that featuring such an article on Christmas would be akin to featuring Adolf Hitler on Hanuakka. There has to be a better choice. TomStar81 08:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And thus, we have fulfilled Godwin's Law. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-4 13:37

Straw poll
(removed by Raul654 on 28 November 2005; archived by ALoan on 4 December 2005)


 * Support. Don't know if I'm too late to vote, but I support it nonetheway... User:Mdob &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Mdob&#124;Talk]] 23:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I won't hold Raul654 to his previously-stated suggestion to not feature an event/holiday on the same day as its anniversary. This is just an alternate suggestion. He makes the final decision, of course. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-11-28 07:33
 * Seconded. It's a very nice article, and the relevance is too obvious to mention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I like these kind of arguments. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I also add support. Toothpaste 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to December 25th nomination; strong support any day around that. I prefer the idea of having Christmas on December 25th than this article. I think the amusing synchronity of Christmas on Christmas will get a lot more people reading the article and getting involved in Wikipedia than if we took advantage of the holiday to feature an article on a philosophical paradox, don't you? :) And I don't see the big problem with featuring an article on the day when it would normally be mentioned as a holidary or anniversary (as was recently done for Rosa Parks on December 1st); why not just have it be FAd instead of mentioning the anniversary, so as to avoid redundancy? Replace the event for a day with another one of the many fascinating events in the expanded list of selected anniversaries. It'll give us a chance to put anniversaries and events on the main page that wouldn't normally get the spotlight but are probably quite interesting anyway, which is good for everyone! If you think it's vital that we juxtapose Christmas with the Omnipotence paradox (I honestly don't really see the significance), why not have it be Featured on either December 24th or December 26th? Then we get both the miracle of Christmas and the ironically-juxtaposed critique of theism. :) -Silence 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Good article on an important philosophical topic --causa sui talk 09:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great article, interesting, informative and well referenced. Bartimaeus 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, it is a great article, and different to the traditional 'Christmas' article. Liz 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support as per Liz et al. &larr; Saravask   * &mdash;  09:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting and good article. Petter Nordby 10:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; Great and informative article about an interresting subject. Placing it on this particular day will underline Wiki's objectiveness and non-religious/political agenda. Celcius 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Excellent article, and neutral in its relevance (i.e., it highlights excellent arguments both for and against its status as a true paradox); if Christmas were nominated, I would have to register opposition, I oppose the nomination of Christmas, as I believe having a holiday highlighted on its own day is off-putting to those who do not celebrate it, as well as simply tacky. - Korpios 10:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very high quality article - clear, well referenced and laid out. I agree with Celcius' comment on objectiveness too. Squiddy 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose having it on Christmas Day. It would look odd, to say the least, to choose to have an article strongly questioning the existence of God (and therefore the divinity of Christ) on that day. By all means have it on a less religiously sensitive day though, jguk 11:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't strongly question the existence of God. It presents the specific issue of the Omnipotence paradox. The article is not POV (and therefore can't "strongly" lean one way or the other), and is a newly Featured Article. It should be judged on that basis. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-11-28 11:35
 * Pshaw. And what's wrong with offending people? What I say is, if Christmas being Featured on the 25th is inconceivably wicked, let's have it on the 24th (or 23rd, if Eve is just as big of a problem), and "omnipotence paradox" on december 25th (or nearby, who really cares? if we aren't having Christmas featured on the 25th, we might as well put a radio or a dinosaur or something up on that day). I care just as little about offending people with "omnipotence paradox" on a religiously day as I do about offending people with "christmas" on Christmas; we should base our choice on what's the most useful, interesting, appealing, and resonant choice, not on political correctness or fear of being accused of systemic bias. We'll always be accused of that, so bending over backwards to avoid it does nothing but worsen the quality of Wikipedia. :O -Silence 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We should always be aware of various political and religious sensibilities surrounding various days. Anniversaries can be very touchy subjects - and avoiding them has benefits. It's easy to find juxtapositions that sit uneasily - why just not go there? jguk 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good to have it on christmas day. The christmas article will be in anniversaries already. Gerrit CUTEDH 11:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it's worth mentioning that having an article that contains questions of the existence of God on the main page on a christian holiday could leave us open to accusations of trolling. Leithp (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're perspicacious today, Leithp ;-) &mdash; fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was trying to be polite but just ending up sounding rather dumb. Ah, well... Leithp (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. There's no use antagonizing a large group of people on one of their most sacred holidays.  It will just build most animosity, which we atheists don't need right now.  If the idea is to use persuasion to show people alternate ideas, do it on a day that doesn't have such significance to the group you are speaking to. --StuffOfInterest 12:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Having this article appear on Christmas Day is, pure and simply, a gigantic FUCK YOU to Christians.  I would be opposed to Christmas as the FA, too, because it would be impossibly twee, and insensitive to non-Christians (especially the people who like the idea of screaming "FUCK YOU").  How about we don't choose FAotDs to be relevant to particular anniversaries? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This "vote" (and the even more ridiculous one below) is precisely why we let the Featured Article Director choose the front-page article by fiat. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think polls are evil, and that this article is great, but the connection to Christmas is just too clear and a lot of people will be pissed off, no matter how great the article is. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. It should be featured, but there's no reason to chose the 25th other than to be antagonistic. Even though it is truly a theistic-assuming debate, most beleivers will interpret it as trolling to have it featured on that day.  Incidentally, I oppose featuring Christmas on the 25th too, though not as strongly. --Meegs 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Also see my comment below. We should make people think about their religion on Christmas, cause that's what christmas is for. --Patrick.trettenbrein 12:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OpposeTo feature such an article on one of the most sacred Christian days of the year, in full knowledge that it would be distasteful to millions, would be unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory. Why risk upsetting people when it can just as easily be on the main page any of the  other  362 days of the year.  The other dates to avoid would be Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.  I would use this argument against featuring any controversial religious page, on any established and globally recognised religions most sacred days. Giano | talk 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see I'm too late Raul has already made his choice. Good! Giano | talk 18:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)